BOARD MEMBERS FREDERICK G,. BUESSER. JR . JOHN L. COTE, CHAIRPERSON MSGR. CLEMENT H. KERN DAVID BAKER LEWIS, SECRETARY FRANK J. MCDEVITT, D. 0. WILLIAM G. REAMON LYNN H. SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON
STATE O F M I C H I G A N
J O H N F. X. DWAIHY Executive n i r e c t o r & General Counsel SUITE 1 2 6 0
3 3 3 W. FORT STREET DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6
TELEPHONE: (3131 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3
Thi s i s t o inform t h e Cour t s of t h e S t a t e of Michigan of t h e fo l lowing Order of D i s c i p l i n e :
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. 36779-A Rela ted No. 36294, 36326, 36618
BOOKER T . GAULDEN (P13878), 1858 Linden, E a s t Lansing, M I 48823, by Order of t h e Michigan Supreme Court denying l e a v e t o appea l . The Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board denied Respondent 's c l a im of appea l and motion f o r s t a y of t h e Order of Suspension rendered by Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board Genessee C i r c u i t Hearing Panel .
(1) Suspension; (2 ) For a pe r iod o f 2 y e a r s ; ( 3 ) E f f e c t i v e A p r i l 28, 1980. The f o u r count Formal Complaint charged: That Respondent v i o l a t e d a p rev ious Order of D i s c i p l i n a r y Suspension i n f a i l i n g , n e g l e c t i n g and r e f u s i n g t o pay c o s t s a s se s sed i n s a i d d i s c i p l i n a r y m a t t e r i n t h e amount of $610.48, t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o n o t i f y h i s c l i e n t s of s a i d Suspension, a s r e q u i r e d by GCR 968, t h a t i n f u r t h e r v i o l a t i o n of s a i d Order of Suspension from t h e p r a c t i c e of law, Respondent con t inued t o main ta in an o f f i c e from which he engaged i n t h e p r a c t i c e of law by v a r i o u s a c t s , i n c l u d i n g accep tance of a r e t a i n e r f e e , appearance and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of c l i e n t s i n C i r c u i t and District Cour t s , and p r e p a r a t i o n , execu t ion and d e l i v e r y ( o r t h e c a u s i n g of same) of a l e t te r b e a r i n g h i s name and d e s i g n a t i o n a s At torney a t Law, i n v i o l a t i o n
of DR 1-102, DR 3-101, and GCR 953. A f o u r t h count i n t h e Complaint cha rges t h a t Respondent adv i sed a c l i e n t t o d e p o s i t proceeds from a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y s e t t l e m e n t i n a t r u s t account i n o r d e r t o avoid d i s c l o s i n g such a s s e t s t o S t a t e Welfare a u t h o r i t i e s , t he reby avoid ing t h e p o s s i b l e d i scon t inuance o f ADC b e n e f i t s , and f u r t h e r
t h a t Respondent induced s a i d c l i e n t and o t h e r p a r t i e s
,, k
r
- . : Dc' -J<P-L 1'. Gaulden to invest substantial funds in a business enterprise, and that Respondent withdrew several thousand dollars from the client trust account in order to pay the expenses of said business venture, without the approval or consent of the client, that Respondent has failed, neglected and refused to account for said sums, and commingled and converted them to his own use, in the amount of $5,768.63, and that Respondent otherwise breached a fiduciary duty to said parties in violation of DR 1-102, DR 5-104, DR 9-102, and GCR 953. At the hearing, Counsel for the Grievance Administrator moved to dismiss portions of the Complaint alleging maintenance of a law office during suspension, acceptance of a retainer fee for a criminal matter, issuance of a letter bearing Respondent's desig- nation as an attorney, and appearance in the 65th District Court during disciplinary suspension. The Hearing Panel found misconduct based upon all allegations in the amended Formal Complaint, with aforementioned subsections dismissed therefrom, in violation of DR 1-102, DR 5-104, DR 9-102, and MGCR 953. Respondent was assessed costs in the amount of $213.50. Respondent had moved the Discipline Board to set aside a default in the matter; said motion was denied, as was Respondent's petition for review by the Board. Respondent applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and requested a stay of discipline pending decision on the application for leave to appeal. The Michigan Supreme Court, in a single order, denied leave to appeal and denied the stay of discipline; therefore, suspension rendered by the panel became-effective April 28, 1980.
Date of Issuance:
David Baker Lewls, Secretar-y ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD FEB 9 1981